Feeding the World: Collaborative Plant Science Between Researchers and Farmers
Introduction
Farmers were pioneer plant breeders long before laboratories existed. Every season, during the whole crop growth period, they monitor their farms to see which plants perform well under diseases and climatic stresses. Careful selection of the best varieties over generations has brought forth the elite genetic combinations and useful traits in crops. The selections ultimately facilitate the domestication of wild plants. Farming and plant breeding originally were never separate activities; every season offered farmers the chance to choose the best varieties (Ceccarelli et al. 2009).
As science and technology advanced, plant breeding and agriculture modernized too. Nowadays, it is not just about selecting crop varieties that visually look good in a particular field; the process also involves controlled crossing, variable field experiments, genetic markers, genome sequencing, genomic prediction, and computational analysis. These technologies have improved crop productivity to some extent. However, climate change, heat, drought, pests, and pathogens are still challenges, while the world population keeps growing. Sustainable agriculture for promoting crop productivity has always been an important topic for farmers and researchers (Voss-Fels et al. 2019).
Farmers as Partners in Scientific Research
New varieties or technologies may seem promising under lab conditions, but they may not necessarily be effective in real farm environments. While researchers may hold advanced technologies, farmers tend to have broad knowledge about local environments and crop behavior. Modern breeding usually emphasizes the interaction between genotypes and environment (G×E), and farmers have first-hand experience with the effects of different environmental factors on crop growth. The idea of participatory plant breeding (PPB) has been proposed (Weltzien et al. 2003; Weltzien and Christinck 2017). It describes the close collaboration between farmers and researchers for cultivar improvement. The contributions from farmers include knowledge on cropping systems, the provision of genetic materials, and the actual processes of breeding and selection (Weltzien et al. 2003). Previous PPB suggested that farmers and researchers usually have different preferences for variety selection. Farmers tend to emphasize the balance between productivity and marketability. However, researchers also pay attention to non-visual traits, such as disease resistance and yield potential. The combined efforts from farmers and researchers will benefit the development of elite crop varieties.
While the participation from farmers can range from consultative, collaborative, to collegial, it will be dependent on the farmers’ status. A study of farmers’ participation in agricultural research and innovation processes in northeastern Ethiopia reveals that the participation is influenced by various factors including education, level of awareness, leadership participation, access to training, extension services, government support, mobile phone ownership, and proximity to farmers’ training centers (Tariku et al. 2026). Younger, well-educated, and socially connected farmers with institutional support tend to engage more in agricultural research (Tariku et al. 2026). The study also reveals the significance of continuous technical support to farmers, peer learning, and collective decision-making to facilitate participation (Tariku et al. 2026).
Collaborative Plant Breeding and On-Farm Trials approaches
Crop performance can vary a lot in nature. For example, a shallow-rooted variety may grow well in sandy soil with frequent rainfall, while a deep-rooted maize variety may not. Laboratory settings may not be able to mimic every combination of soil type, climate, cropping system, market, and production constraint on farms. So, testing at research laboratories needs to be coupled with on-farm trials (Voss-Fels et al. 2019). Here, PPB and Participatory Variety Selection (PVS) come into the picture to promote farmers’ involvement in growing and choosing the best-fit crops (Shelton and Tracy 2016).
Since farmers know well the conditions of their farms, in field trials, they can manage plots, notice unusual weather changes, observe crop development throughout the season, and evaluate the on-site qualities of the crops (Colley et al. 2018). One such example comes from an on-farm research study, which engages farmers directly in testing and innovation of new technology. A recent survey across the US Midwest and South-Central regions highlights farmers’ interest in university–farmer collaboration. Compared to off-farm research, farmers tend to trust on-farm research more. They were also willing to adopt the green initiative suggested by on-farm research, such as cover crops and no-till farming (Pires et al. 2024).
To make this alliance effective on the ground, scientists adapted some practical approaches like the mother–baby trial model, where multiple varieties’ “mother” trials managed by researchers and farmers take care of smaller “baby” trials. Another digital model is Tricot (triadic comparison of technology options), where farmers grow three coded varieties and evaluate their performance. Digital tools such as ClimMob and Open Data Kit help to make these complex trials into science projects (Colley et al. 2018; de Sousa et al. 2024).
Farmer -managed cassava trials in Uganda and group based PVS for common beans in Central America are successful examples of tricot applications in the real world (Nanyonjo et al. 2024; Occelli et al. 2024). Participatory testing is now setting foot in an extensive breeding network. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has started an initiative called “Breeding for Tomorrow” to facilitate on-farm trials and accommodate farmers’ preferences before releasing new varieties (CGIAR 2025).
While the above-mentioned models speed up broad agronomic evaluations, initiatives like the Seed to Kitchen demonstrate how multi-stakeholder testing can also focus on specific quality traits. It shows how on-farm testing expands beyond yield and disease resistance to cooking quality and flavor. It connects the breeders, organic farmers, and professional chefs to develop, test, and evaluate new varieties based on flavor, fresh-market quality, and suitability for organic farms. The program shows farmer-led testing not restricted to overall yield; it can be adapted according to market and customers’ requirements (Dawson Lab 2020).
Combining Farmers’ Knowledge with Modern Plant Science: opportunities and challenges
Farmers can help scientists to narrow down variety candidates with their own farm experience by evaluating crop materials in the field.
Durum wheat research in Ethiopia well demonstrates such a collaboration. Farmers’ opinions were treated as scientific observations, and researchers evaluated 1,200 recombinant wheat lines, grown in approximately 10,400 plots. Both male and female farmers’ appreciation scores were used to train the GS model and to identify the marker–trait associations. Models trained with farmers’ scores were found to be more accurate when tested for genomic-selection comparisons. Genetic analyses also identified genomic regions tied to farmer preference, phenology, yield, and yield components (Gesesse et al. 2023).
Farmers have real-life experience in extreme climates and their effects on agriculture. Sri Lanka’s Maho Agrarian Zone region-based study reflects how local experience and participation change the dynamics of climate data and strategies. Through digital surveys and focus-group discussions, farmers shared their own experiences about erratic rainfall, shifted crop seasons, flooding, and pest problems. 96.7% of them reported noticing climatic changes, 62.8% reported a lack of insurance, and most of them reported limited govt support, hence proving that climate-smart policies cannot be effective without empowering and supporting them (Wijeratne et al. 2026).
Similarly, among 321 participants in Taiwan’s Smart Agriculture training program, Automatic environmental-control systems were the best-understood technologies, whereas biological image-detection and recognition tools were the hardest ones. This study suggests a strong need to organize formal training programs for farmers as well as designing research and technology around farmers’ preferences and requirements (Chuang et al. 2020).
It’s not just a case in developing countries or underdeveloped countries; even developed countries’ farmers also encounter this issue. A survey of 247 farmers in the Midwest USA demonstrates the importance of farmers’ input while designing agriculture-related software. 93% of farmers were using at least one digital agricultural technology. Most of them wanted a digital tool to address fertilizer efficiency, pest and disease management, and water management. High maintenance costs, while less profit for smaller farms, were the major barriers (Cano et al. 2026).
Scientific knowledge facilitates good varieties or smarter tools to make agricultural research farmer-oriented, locally grounded, more trusted, and better prepared to tackle the environmental and food-production challenges ahead, and the collaboration between researchers and farmers enhances effective applications.
Feeding the world together
As discussed above, farmers and researchers tend to have different preferences for variety selections, focusing on different traits. The collaborative development of stress-tolerant crops with farmers can be a challenge to balance stress tolerance mechanisms and seed marketability. Nevertheless, successful collaborations between farmers and researchers for stress-tolerant crop development have been documented.
Drought tolerance is a typical trait influenced by the interaction between the genotype and the environment. To develop elite drought-tolerant cultivars, testing by farmers in the field poses practical significance. In a breeding program for drought tolerance common bean varieties in southern Ethiopia, farmers were invited to select common bean varieties with different genotypes in local fields (Asfaw et al. 2012). The farmers had great concern about the seed color. Black and carioca seeds were rejected by farmers despite the drought tolerance and high yield. Instead, red seeds were preferred by the farmers (Asfaw et al. 2012). Farmers also considered whether the genotypes fit the cropping system. For example, they selected early-maturing varieties which were suitable for intercropping or crop relay. Coincidentally, early maturation is also an important strategy to escape from drought. Compared to drought tolerance, which allows the plants to withstand drought stress in the growing season, the farmers preferred early maturation to escape from drought (Asfaw et al. 2012).
The collaboration between farmers and researchers for the development of disease-resistant crops was also documented. In a farmers’ participation breeding program in the Andean region, farmers were invited to select disease-resistant varieties of different crops including maize, potato, wheat, barley, common bean and quinoa (Danial et al. 2007). In addition to the disease resistance traits, the farmers also considered seed color, taste, texture, and ease of harvesting (Danial et al. 2007).
The above examples demonstrate that the participation of farmers in breeding programs facilitates the consideration of actual needs during crop cultivation.
Conclusion
Previous studies have supported the necessity and advantages of farmer-researcher collaboration for crop production. The collaboration allows the combination of advanced technologies and real-life experience in the field. The involvement of farmers in research also enhances their willingness to adopt the new farming practices. Elite crop cultivation depends a lot on human selection. The combined selections from farmers and researchers facilitate the combination of elite traits from different perspectives, including crop yield, seed marketability, and stress tolerance of the crops.
References
Asfaw A, Almekinders CJM, Blair MW, and Struik PC. Participatory approach in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) breeding for drought tolerance for southern Ethiopia. Plant Breed. 2012:131:125–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2011.01921.x
Cano P, Mandrini G, Buckmaster D, Arnall B, Carroll M, Sharda A, Balboa G, Carcedo A, Hawkins E, Fulton J, et al. Farmer perspectives on digital agriculture in the US Midwest. Agron J. 2026:118:e70268. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.70268
Ceccarelli S, Guimaraes EP, and Weltzien E eds. Plant breeding and farmer participation (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
CGIAR. Farmers take the lead in shaping CGIAR crop innovations through the Tricot methodology. 2025. https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/farmers-take-the-lead-in-shaping-cgiar-crop-innovations-through-the-tricot-methodology. Retrieved September 22, 2026
Chuang JH, Wang JH, and Liou YC. Farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and adoption of smart agriculture technology in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020:17(19):7236. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197236
Colley M, Dawson J, Zystro J, Healy K, Myers J, Behar H, and Becker K. The grower’s guide to conducting on-farm variety trials. Org Seed Alliance. 2018. https://seedalliance.org/publications/growers-guide-conducting-farm-variety-trials/
Danial D, Parlevliet J, Almekinders C, and Thiele G. Farmers’ participation and breeding for durable disease resistance in the Andean region. Euphytica. 2007:153(3):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9165-9
Dawson Lab. Seed to Kitchen Collaborative. 2020. https://seedtokitchen.horticulture.wisc.edu/. Retrieved September 22, 2026
Gesesse CA, Nigir B, Sousa K de, Gianfranceschi L, Gallo GR, Poland J, Kidane YG, Desta EA, Fadda C, PèMatteo ME, et al. Genomics-driven breeding for local adaptation of durum wheat is enhanced by farmers’ traditional knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023:120(14):e2205774119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205774119
Nanyonjo AR, Angudubo S, Iragaba P, Brown D, Nuwamanya E, Esuma W, Ozimati A, Wembabazi E, Kanaabi M, Muhumuza N, et al. On-farm evaluation of cassava clones using the triadic comparison of technology options approach. Crop Sci. 2024:64(5):2679–2697. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21293
Occelli M, Sellare J, Sousa K De, Dell’Acqua M, Mercado L, Paredes S, Robalino J, Rosas JC, and van Etten J. Group-based and citizen science on-farm variety selection approaches for bean growers in Central America. Agric Econ. 2024:55(2):270–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12819
Pires CB, Krupek FS, Carmona GI, Ortez OA, Thompson L, Quinn DJ, Reis AFB, Werle R, Kovács P, Singh MP, et al. Perspective of US farmers on collaborative on-farm agronomic research. Agron J. 2024:116(3):1590–1602. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21560
Shelton AC and Tracy WF. Participatory plant breeding and organic agriculture: A synergistic model for organic variety development in the United States. Elem Sci Anthr. 2016:4:000143. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000143
de Sousa K, van Etten J, Manners R, Abidin E, Abdulmalik RO, Abolore B, Acheremu K, Angudubo S, Aguilar A, Arnaud E, et al. The tricot approach: an agile framework for decentralized on-farm testing supported by citizen science. A retrospective. Agron Sustain Dev. 2024:44(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00937-1
Tariku GD, Kebede SA, Getahun AA, Abate MA, and Tesfaye SK. Farmers participation in agricultural research and innovation processes in northeastern Ethiopia. Discov Sustain. 2026:7:1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03485-2
Voss-Fels KP, Stahl A, and Hickey LT. Q&A: Modern crop breeding for future food security. BMC Biol. 2019:17:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-019-0638-4
Weltzien E and Christinck A. Participatory breeding: Developing improved and relevant crop varieties with farmers. In. Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development, S Snapp and B Pound, eds. (Elsevier Inc.), pp. 259–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802070-8.00008-6
Weltzien E, Smith ME, Meitzner LS, and Sperling L. Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding — From the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding: A Global Analysis of Issues, Results, and Current Experience. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/87cff5f9-39db-4993-8d46-6b33f392b768
Wijeratne VPIS, Mehmood MS, Jayatunga JND, and Manawadu L. An integrated participatory framework for climate-smart agricultural practices from the lens of climate change, farmers’ perceptions and adaptations. Sustainability. 2026:18(7):3401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073401
______________________________________________
About the Authors
Kavita Joshi
Kavita is a 2026 Plantae Fellow with a background in plant biology who is passionate about plant science research, science communication, and education.She is interested in creating content for ASPB that makes plant science accessible and engaging for both the general public and the broader plant science community through simple and approachable communication. In her free time, she enjoys crafting, gardening, and exploring nature as an eco-enthusiast.
Yee-Shan Ku
Yee-Shan is a postdoctoral researcher at State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, a 2026 Plantae Editor. She is interested in comprehending life sciences at the molecular level. Her research focuses on plant metabolites, plant-microbe interaction, and agricultural biotechnology for crop improvement. X: @YeeShanKu1